Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a Democratic legislative agenda that would improve our Nation's infrastructure and focus on job creation and support of the American people.

Instead of taking backward steps and undermining existing law that protects and helps our fellow Americans, we must concentrate on fair wages, scientific advancement, and allowing individuals to access health security. We must begin to work on reauthorizing the highway trust fund immediately, moving beyond the all-too-familiar recurring nightmare of short-term, piecemeal highway reauthorizations.

Instead of providing giveaways to special interest groups, we must strengthen protections in public health, the environment, food safety, and consumer safety for hardworking Americans. We must support access to quality, affordable health insurance for millions of Americans instead of slowly chipping away provisions of the Affordable Care Act. And Congress must think in the long term by leading efforts to curb climate change.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 23, legislation that would reauthorize the National Windstorm Impact Reduction Program--or NWIRP.

The last few years have been devastating years for natural disasters across the country. There were massive tornadoes across the Midwest that resulted in loss of life and significant economic damages. In addition, Hurricane Irene in 2011 and Superstorm Sandy in 2012 caused widespread destruction and death along the Eastern seaboard.

H.R. 23 directs NIST, NSF, NOAA, and FEMA to support activities to improve the understanding of windstorms and their impacts. We can use that knowledge to reduce the vulnerability of our communities to natural disasters. The NWIRP program helps our federal agencies and communities across the nation develop and implement many measures that help minimize the loss of life and property during windstorms and to rebuild effectively and safely after such storms.

I was pleased that when this bill was considered by the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee last Congress, we worked in a bipartisan manner and made several improvements to the bill.

We worked together to increase the authorization for FEMA, the agency tasked with implementing the research conducted by the other NWIRP agencies. Additionally, we added several social science-related provisions to the bill. We cannot design effective disaster preparation strategies without understanding how people make decisions and respond to disaster warnings.

This is a compromise bill and so it doesn't contain as much as I think should be done. In particular, I wish this bill included authorization increases for the NWIRP agencies--increases that are justified by the important activities those agencies carry out. However, it is still a good bill and an important bill for us to act on.

I want to thank my fellow Texans--Chairman Smith and Mr. Neugebauer-- for working across the aisle on this bill and for bringing it to the floor today. And I want to thank Ms. Wilson for her efforts on this legislation. It was good to see Members of the Committee coming together, working out their differences, compromising, and ending up with a bill with bipartisan support.

I support the bill and urge my colleagues to support this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 34, the ``Tsunami Warning, Education, and Research Act of 2015''.

First, I want to thank the Ranking Member of the Environment Subcommittee, Ms. Bonamici, for her work on this legislation and her commitment to maintaining the health and vitality of the Nation's oceans and coastal communities. I would also like to thank Mr. Rohrabacher for joining her in this bipartisan effort, and Mr. Smith, the Chairman of the Science Committee, for starting the 114th Congress with a good bipartisan bill.

Over 120 million Americans call the United States coastline their home. These coastal communities--from major cities to small towns--play a vital role in sustaining the American economy. In fact, approximately one-third of the U.S. gross domestic product has its origins in coastal areas. That is why the bill we are considering today is so important. It would allow the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to continue to protect Americans and our coastal economies from the threat of tsunamis.

This legislation is a perfect example of a familiar saying: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Our tsunami warning program has increased in effectiveness over the last decade, but we must remain vigilant in our preparedness and continue to invest in the research and development, and education and outreach, necessary to improve the resiliency of our coastal communities to these destructive waves. We were reminded in 2004 in Sumatra, and again in 2011 in Japan, of the devastation that can be caused by a tsunami. Billions and billions of dollars in economic damages and countless lives are at risk if we do not maintain, and improve, our tsunami detection and forecasting capabilities. Today's legislation advances NOAA's research efforts to do just that and may ultimately add minutes of critical response time to tsunami warnings. The bill also recognizes that the results of NOAA's research must be translated into outreach and education activities at the state and local level. The effective and timely communication of threats is critical in mitigating the impacts of a natural disaster. In addition, increased warning times are only effective if people know how to respond. I am pleased that this legislation emphasizes and supports local community preparedness.

Resiliency to natural disasters is an important part of strengthening the nation's economic security. I want to ensure that our coastal communities have the resources and tools they need to minimize the loss of life and property caused by a tsunami. Reauthorizing NOAA's tsunami activities is a key step in helping our communities continue to make progress.

I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady very much.

I rise in support of President Obama's recent announcement that updates our diplomatic policy approach to Cuba. I am very pleased to see that our outdated approach to U.S.-Cuban relations will end and we will begin to normalize our relationship with Cuba. Not only does the Obama administration's announcement reestablish positive diplomatic ties with Cuba, it also helps to empower the Cuban people by updating travel restrictions, remittance policies, and quality of life.

One of the most positive outcomes of the updated policy announcement is the lifting of many trade restrictions between the United States and Cuba. In my home State of Texas, the Texas Farm Bureau has long supported improved trade policies with Cuba because of the potential to export Texas farm products. This provision not only serves the U.S. economy positively, but it is also very meaningful to the Cuban policy, which has struggled tremendously in the past.

While trade provisions and helping to improve the livelihood of Cuban people by allowing the Cuban economy to build are constructive measures, we must focus on additional viable resources Cuba could provide to the United States. For instance, with the opening of diplomatic ties, I sincerely hope that our State medical boards in the United States will consider the educational value that Cuban medical schools provide to future health professionals who wish to practice medicine in the United States. I have had students from my district attend medical school in Cuba. I am aware that Cuba has offered nurses and physicians around the world in needy countries where needed.

The aforementioned examples are only a few of the many ways that opening our diplomatic relations with Cuba will be positive for our country, and I urge my colleagues to support the Obama administration's decision to update our relationship with our neighbor and future ally.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 1353, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2014.

I want to commend several Members on both sides of the aisle and both chambers who have worked on this bill for many years. I want to thank Representatives Lipinski and McCaul and Senators Rockefeller and Thune for their longstanding, bipartisan leadership on this critical topic of cybersecurity research and development.

This bipartisan bill is overall a very good bill that contributes in essential ways to any comprehensive effort to keep our nation, our businesses, and our citizens safe from malicious cyber attacks.

S. 1353 incorporates a number of pieces from H.R. 756, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2013 that moved on a bipartisan basis through the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, and then was passed overwhelmingly on the House floor last April.

While S. 1353 is a good bill and I will be supporting it, I want to talk about what is not in this bill but was in H.R. 756. I hope that as we continue to discuss actions our government can take to better secure our cyberspace, we keep these topics on the table.

The first of these topics is human factors. The fact is that people, not software or hardware, remain the weakest link in our cybersecurity. Whether it's weak passwords, or falling victim to phishing, or using corrupted thumb drives, people unwittingly compromise their own security and that of large networks and companies every day. To truly secure our cyberspace, it is vital that we understand how and why people make the decisions they do, and how we might develop better policies and technologies to reduce risky behaviors. Unfortunately, a section contained in H.R. 756 to direct just this type of research was not incorporated into S. 1353. I hope we continue to make human factors a priority going forward.

The second topic is workforce. The federal government and private sector alike is suffering from a lack of adequately trained cybersecurity professionals. Unfortunately, women and underrepresented minorities are still significantly underrepresented in computer and information sciences. We can't expect to fix the shortage of skilled cybersecurity professionals with much less than half of our brain power. I wish S. 1353 included more language on how our agencies can help address this shortage. As I see it, our only option is to continue to make this a priority.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to address a concern that NIST had about some of the language in this bill. In one of the opening paragraphs of the bill, paragraph (e)(1), NIST is directed to prevent duplication of regulatory processes and prevent conflict of regulatory requirements. I just want to clarify two things. First, by definition, NIST's processes are non-regulatory. Second, NIST cannot be held responsible for regulatory actions or processes at other agencies.

The language is ambiguous on this second point so I just wanted to make sure we are clear in our expectations for NIST. To address a second concern that NIST raised, I hope that limitation clause in paragraph (e)(2) does not prevent regulatory agencies from using information gained through the processes in this bill to fix duplicative or outdated regulations.

With that Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here this morning as a proud American and proud of this Republic which elected the first African American President 6 years ago, and reelected him 2 years ago by an overwhelming vote.

I rise today to celebrate my outstanding colleague and dear friend, Representative Marcia Fudge, on the completion of her term as the 23rd chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.

I have had the honor and privilege of working along with Representative Fudge on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee when she first was elected to the House of Representatives in 2008. Since that time, I have watched her thrive as a fearless leader on Capitol Hill, not only for her constituents of Ohio's 11th District, but for African Americans and other underrepresented citizens all over the country and internationally. As chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Representative Fudge is only the seventh woman to serve in this capacity, and she has been groundbreaking in her fight to tackle difficult issues facing underrepresented communities of color during her 2-year term as chair.

Mr. Speaker, under Representative Fudge's leadership, the Congressional Black Caucus has continued to be the conscience of Congress, working tirelessly to steer good policy to the forefront. Over these past 2 years, Representative Fudge, in her role as chair, has faithfully represented the underrepresented voices as they pertain to job creation, education, health care, national security, and a host of other pressing issues. Her intricate policy knowledge, political savvy, and ability to build coalitions have been of tremendous value to the Congressional Black Caucus and to the Nation.

I can speak on behalf of all of my colleagues--and you have just witnessed them here present in the Chamber--in saying that we will sorely miss her leadership, and we thank her for her service as chair. I am confident that Ms. Fudge will continue to serve selflessly and devote her time and talents to the CBC and its goals, and I look forward to continuing our important work together because it is far from being over.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 4926 and to honor the life of a truly remarkable man that we lost this year, Jim Oberstar. This legislation would designate the ``James L. Oberstar Memorial Highway'' and the ``James L. Oberstar National Scenic Byway'' in the State of Minnesota, but more importantly, it would honor the legacy of one of our most beloved former colleagues.

Jim grew up appreciating the value of hard work and he innately understood the importance of cultivating strong relationships and tirelessly fighting for what was right.

He left the House of Representatives and the nation quite frankly, in a better place than when he found it. He was the consummate public servant and has an incredible lasting legacy.

In the 18 terms he served in Congress, he had a remarkable impact on the transportation industry in America and upon all of his colleagues. He was uniquely aware of the value of jobs, the economy, and the interconnectedness of goods and people throughout the country.

In a profession not always known for brevity of remarks, his speeches, as we can all attest, were amongst the most lengthy. However, when delivering remarks, he spoke passionately and with great intellect, never failing to effectively convey his point to a wide variety of audiences.

More importantly, he understood the value of bipartisanship in Washington and never let politics get in the way of good policy.

While we mourn the loss of our dear friend, we celebrate his life and service to this nation. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the career of our distinguished colleague from West Virginia, the Honorable Nick Joe Rahall.

Nick, the current Ranking Member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and former Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, was first elected to Congress in 1976.

Born in West Virginia, Nick tirelessly worked to improve the lives of his constituents and remained firmly committed to the economic development of his state.

His dedication to our country's transportation and infrastructure systems led him to be a key architect of many transportation reauthorizations, including the Transportation equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21).

Having served in this body since 1977, Nick understands the value of bipartisanship and being able to work with all members, regardless of their party. As such, Nick never let a party label stand in the way of good policy.

Nick's friendship and professionalism will be greatly missed and I wish him the best of luck in all his future endeavors.

I am delighted to join you in saying some words about Ralph Hall, my friend.

Mr. Speaker, it has been my honor and privilege to serve with my colleague and friend. We had some laughs just recently when I visited him about our history and working together in elective office.

Our relationship goes back to when I was in the Texas house--and I left the Texas house in the seventies--talking about things that we remembered. I really regret that he is not here today, but he wanted to be, and he planned to be, but he is not going to make it today.

As all of you have had the pleasure of serving with Ralph, we are missing out on several jokes and stories. Some of them were really funny, and some can't be said in some places, so I won't try to match him in storytelling.

I am going to tell you a little story that happened when Ralph switched parties. I called him and called him and called him and called him, and I couldn't get through, nor did he return my calls until I finally said, ``Well, just tell him I still love him, and I don't care what party he is in.''

Thirty seconds later, he returned my call, and he said, ``I just couldn't take another bawling out from a woman.'' He said, ``I have gotten it from my sister. I got it from my wife.''

I said, ``But do you know what? Probably nobody understands more than I do because I have been watching your numbers.'' So it never interfered with our relationship.

When he was chair of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee, two of the years that he was chair, I was the ranking member. He never hesitated to reach across the aisle to try to reach consensus. Really, that is the kind of spirit we need now. I will miss him for that. I will miss him because of the history we both shared.

Our districts used to come right next to each other. Now, there are a couple of people that come in between us, but it won't divide our friendship, and I look forward to our continued friendship for many years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I have learned so much from him. I remember when I first came, he was the person who taught me how to make arrangements to go home every week with the airline that we use and also taught me how to find rooms and shortcuts of how to get where you need to go on this Hill, which is rather complicated when you first get here. He will be greatly missed.

He has meant a lot, and he has done a lot. The space exploration program will be forever grateful to him. The Science, Space, and Technology Committee research and all it stands for will always have Ralph Hall as a part of its history.

I appreciate the opportunity to have had a chance to work with him, to know him and his family, and to wish him well.

Thank you very much, Mr. Rush. I appreciate the fact that you are holding this hour.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the honor of the work of Mr. John Dingell who will retire this year as the longest-serving Member, with 59 years as a Michigan Representative. Since 1955, Congressman Dingell has represented the southeastern Michigan area and served on the Committee on Energy and Commerce and twice as chairman.

When I learned that Mr. Dingell would retire at the end of this term, I was saddened to know that we would lose such a fine leader and advocate for social democracy; however, we must continue Mr. Dingell's fight for all Americans.

He is well-known for his battles on behalf of civil rights, clean water, Medicare, and workers' rights. He is also the author of many pieces of legislation that enhance the protection of public health such as the Affordable Care Act.

While he expanded public health and advocated for environmental conservationism, Mr. Dingell also combated corruption and waste via his chairmanship of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. He exerted strong, unwavering oversight of the executive branch through his committee, and his successes in Congress earned him the 2014 Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Through his career in Congress, he was willing and able to work across the aisle to accomplish tasks that made Americans' lives better. A true advocate for the people, Mr. Dingell dedicated his life to ensuring that public health safety of the American people was always in the forefront. Whether authoring the Clean Air Act or the Patients' Bill of Rights, Mr. Dingell was unwavering in his questions to protect Americans.

I urge my colleagues to recognize the accomplishments of Congressman John Dingell and join me in congratulating him on an outstanding career in public service.

Mr. Speaker, the Ferguson Grand Jury's decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson for the August 9th shooting of unarmed teenager Michael Brown is a grave injustice. This decision plays into the deeply painful narrative, held in the hearts of many African Americans, that the lives of young black men are not valued in this country. While this notion may seem hard to believe for some, it is a reality for many minorities, as we continually see our justice system betray us. Most disturbing about the death of Michael Brown is the chilling fact that he is not the first unarmed African American man to die at the hands of police officers who were not held accountable for their actions. When I think of Michael Brown, I think of Edward Garner, Anthony Baez, Amadou Diallo, Anthony Lee, and Oscar Grant. I think of the futures that could have been, and the pain and suffering brought to their families. How many more lives will we lose before deciding to bring about meaningful change?

As the proud mother of a black man and grandmother to three grandsons, I cannot imagine the depth of the wound left in the hearts of Lesley McSpadden and Michael Brown Sr. As a Member of Congress who represents a predominantly minority community similar to Ferguson, I mourn for the societal ills faced by my constituents, the people of Ferguson and communities of color around the country. I share in their sense of hurt and anger. Our charge now is to harness that anger into constructive change, initiating dialogue with our community members, our elected officials, and our police departments, to ensure that there are no more senseless tragedies.

We are never wrong for heralding the call for justice. However, it is time for us to evaluate our methods for sounding that call. Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King once said: ``we must accept finite disappointment, but never lose infinite hope.'' At a time when it may seem easy to retreat to our respective corners, we should instead seek understanding and acceptance from one another, by working together to secure a better future for our sons.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize St. Paul United Methodist Church in my home state of Texas. After enriching the Dallas community for more than a century, St. Paul United Methodist Church has been recognized as a Texas Historic Landmark. The historical recognition of this church and its congregation in the Dallas community is an honor long overdue.

As a proud public servant of the thirtieth Congressional District of Texas, I am proud to see this tribute bestowed upon St. Paul United Methodist Church. With a rich history deeply rooted in education, dating back to the early periods of the Emancipation Proclamation, St. Paul served as one of only a few schools open to African American children during this turbulent time.

For well over a century, St. Paul United Methodist Church has been a pillar in the faith community of Dallas, answering the call to serve District 30 constituents through fellowship, ministry, and safe haven. I am honored to represent St. Paul and its congregation in the U.S. House of Representatives. I deeply value this historic landmark, and I congratulate St. Paul United Methodist Church on this outstanding honor.

In honor of its numerous years of service, ministry, and leadership, I encourage my fellow colleagues and state legislatures to recognize the value in the deeply enriching culture of historic landmarks such as St. Paul United Methodist Church. Through their tireless efforts to serve their surrounding communities, they will provide enrichment for years to come.

Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 549--``yes;'' 550--``no;'' 551--``yes.''

Had I been present, I would have voted as listed.

personal explanation

Mr. Chair, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chair, this bill does not permit me to mince words. This bill is an insidious attack on EPA's ability to use the best science to protect public health, and its consideration on the House floor today is the culmination of one of the most anti-science and anti-health campaigns I have witnessed in my 22 years as a Member of Congress.

The genesis of this legislation is the Republicans' longstanding obsession with two seminal scientific studies conducted by Harvard University and the American Cancer Society.

These studies link air pollution with increased illnesses and death; moreover, those results were confirmed by multiple independent researchers and organizations including the National Research Council and the Health Effects Institute.

The Republican majority has harassed EPA for more than 2 years in an attempt to get access to the raw data used in those studies, presumably in an attempt to cast doubt on the conclusion that air pollution is bad for the health of Americans and to prevent EPA from trying to keep the air we breath clean.

The EPA told my Republican colleagues that since the studies involved the personal health information of

hundreds of thousands of volunteers, the raw data was stringently protected from public disclosure; therefore, even if they were the legal custodian of this data, they could not lawfully hand over such sensitive information.

Instead, in compliance with the law, EPA provided the Science Committee with all of the ``de-identified'' data within its possession, which ran to hundreds of pages of data rolled in like a grocery cart. This was not enough for my colleagues, and so they have decided to pursue this pernicious piece of legislation.

Rather than explain the problems with this legislation myself, I will simply quote from a letter we received from the American Lung Association and the American Thoracic Society, two leading and trusted public health organizations. They state:

The legislation will compel the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency to either ignore the best science by

prohibiting the Agency from considering peer-reviewed

research that is based on confidential patient information or

force EPA to publicly release confidential patient

information, which would violate Federal law.

This is an untenable outcome that would completely

undermine the ability of the EPA to perform its

responsibilities under the Clean Air Act and myriad other

Federal laws. The legislation will not improve EPA's actions;

rather, it will stifle public health protections.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle will wrongly claim that this legislation is consistent with the requirements of major scientific journals, the White House's policy to promote public access to federally-funded research, and recommendations from independent groups like the Administrative Conference of the United States. This is simply not true.

All of those entities recognize the balance between making data public and protecting confidentiality and personal privacy. They do not paint scientists or the EPA into a corner and tell them that the only way their research can be used or considered is if all of that data is available in a form--let me quote from the bill--``that is sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction.''

That phrase is critical to understanding the implications of H.R. 4012. According to a letter from the American Cancer Society to EPA, they ``are not aware of any way to create a de-identified version of the Cancer Prevention Study II data set sufficient to protect confidentiality of the participants while at the same time allowing a true replica of the studies.''

Because legitimate researchers like the American Cancer Society must publish their peer-reviewed results in a de-identified form, if this bill becomes law, the EPA will not be able to rely on those important studies to protect public health and the environment.

I would like to quote Dr. Ellen Silbergeld from Johns Hopkins University, a witness at a hearing the Science Committee held on this bill. She states:

If the EPA is unable to access the peer-reviewed literature

because raw data are not available as proposed in the

``Secret Science'' bill, then we move to the dysfunctional

situation where the EPA will be unable to sustain its

decisions because these will be based on inadequate or

incomplete science.

This is not a position that I can support. Let me be clear: this bill is an attempt to constrain the EPA under the guise of promoting transparency.

A diverse set of voices from the scientific, public health, legal, and environmental communities agree with me and have criticized this legislation. I have received letters from more than 50 organizations expressing their concern with H.R. 4012, including the American Lung Association, the American Thoracic Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Association of American Universities, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Environmental Defense Fund.

Whatever views my fellow Members may have about specific EPA rules and regulations, I would hope that they will see this bill for what it is, a malicious assault on EPA's ability to protect public health. Limiting or prohibiting what science EPA uses as part of its rulemaking would be a consequence of this bill. The American people deserve better.

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

I yield an additional minute to the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lofgren), the second most senior member of the full committee on the Democratic side.

Mr. Chairman, before I yield to my next speaker, I would like to enter in the Record a series of letters from outside groups opposed to this legislation, including the American Lung Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, League of Conservation Voters, and many others.

In addition, I would also like to place a Statement of Administration Policy threatening a veto of this bill into the Record.

American Lung Association,

American Thoracic Society,

November 17, 2014.

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative: We are writing to express our

opposition to H.R. 4012 the Secret Science Reform Act of

2014. The American Lung Association is the oldest voluntary

health organization in the United States. The Lung

Association mission is to save lives by improving lung health

and preventing lung disease. We achieve our mission through

research, advocacy and education. The American Thoracic

Society is a medical professional society dedicated to the

prevention, detection, treatment and cure of pulmonary

disease, critical care illness and sleep disordered breathing

through research, education and advocacy.

Science is the bedrock of sound regulatory decision making.

The best science underscores everything our organizations do

to improve health. We strongly believe in a transparent and

open regulatory process. A vital element of research is

patient confidentiality. Physicians and researchers have

earned by trust of their patients by steadfastly maintaining

patient confidentiality. Patient confidentiality is a clear

legal obligation and a sacred vow.

The legislation before the Congress will compel the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency to either ignore the best

science by prohibiting the agency from considering peer-

reviewed research that is based on confidential patient

information or force EPA to publicly release confidential

patient information, which would violate federal law. This is

an untenable outcome that would completely undermine ability

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to perform its

responsibilities under the Clean Air Act and myriad other

federal laws. The legislation will not improve EPA's actions,

rather it will stifle public health protections.

We note that the kind of information disclosure envisioned

in this legislation exceeds that required by peer reviewed

journals. We believe much of the intent of this legislation

is already achieved through the current peer review process

required by all academic journals. The vast majority of peer

reviewed journals require manuscript authors to register any

trial using human subjects with clinicaltrials.gov. This

public registry collects key information on the study

population, research goals and methods that allow outside

reviewers and scientists to either challenge or attempt to

reproduce study results. Additionally, the peer review

process and publication of results invites the broader

scientific community to debate study findings. Trial registry

and manuscript publications are only part of the process by

which scientific endeavors operate in a transparent

environment.

Private organizations, public charities, research

universities, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention, the Centers for Medicare

and Medicaid Services, the Department of Veterans Affairs,

corporations and many other entities conduct medical

research. Many of these organizations compile large

longitudinal data sets that track patients of a period of

time. These data serve as the basis of many studies that

permit epidemiologists to track disease and risk factor

information for large patient populations.

The published peer-reviewed information from such data

often may inform regulatory decision making at the EPA and

other federal agencies and inform future research. Not only

do these data inform regulatory action, they help inform

efforts to educate the public about the magnitude of a

disease, risk factors and steps individuals can take to

improve their health. In order for EPA to set the most

appropriate standards it must be informed by the best

information.

Understanding the impact of air pollution on human health

and the magnitude of harm caused by pollution at specific

levels helps the agency meet its obligations under the Clean

Air Act. Absent these data, it is unclear upon what basis the

agency could make sound decisions.

We urge the House of Representatives to reject H.R. 4012.

Sincerely,

Harold Wimmer,

National President & CEO, American Lung Association.

Stephen C. Crane, PhD, MPH,

Executive Director, American Thoracic Society.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Massachusetts (Ms. Clark).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), the one scientist we have with a Ph.D. in physics in our body who is retiring and, as of next year, will become the CEO of AAAS.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Bonamici), who is ranking member on the Environmental Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chair, I submit the following letters.

American Statistical Association,

Alexandria, VA, September 5, 2014.

Hon. Kevin McCarthy,

Majority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Majority Leader McCarthy, As president-elect of the

American Statistical Association, with 19,000 members, I

write regarding H.R. 4012, the ``Secret Science Reform Act.''

We generally applaud the idea that researchers and federal

agencies strive to make data available to others--under

strict pledges to maintain confidentiality of data provided

by individuals and establishments where necessary--and to

encourage reproducible research. Access to data and

reproducibility of research are crucially important for

science to advance.

While H.R. 4012's intent is to make data more widely

available, we have several concerns and urge the bill to be

revised significantly before further consideration. Our

concerns include those voiced by others (especially the

American Association for the Advancement of Science) that the

bill's statements do not account for the complexities common

to the scientific process on research that involves

biological materials or physical specimens not easily

accessible, combinations of public and private data,

longitudinal data collected over many years that are

difficult to reproduce, and data from one-time events that

cannot be replicated. The bill as written could have far-

reaching consequences that would ultimately hamper or

undermine the scientific process generally and EPA's work

specifically. We also agree with the point that it would be

prudent to see the EPA's data access policy--in accordance

with the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010--

expected by year's end before further action on H.R. 4012.

Our nation should be striving for transparency in

government and, as noted above, data accessibility, but these

goals also must be balanced with the necessity to protect

individuals' and businesses' privacy. The bill's language of

``publicly available'' except when ``prohibited by law''

acknowledges this balance, but that language is vague and may

be insufficient to protect individuals and businesses. In

particular, some data sets may not fall under ``prohibited by

law,'' yet the data are still collected under a pledge to

protect the identifiability and confidentiality of the

reported values. For example, the government, as well as

private and nonprofit sectors, routinely collects data--

including private business information and private health

information--under strict pledges to protect confidentiality.

In some studies, this is backed up with penalties for

violating those pledges. Such data should not be publicly

available to every person who might ask for them. Rather,

data subjects' confidentiality should be protected, for

example by policies and procedures that provide data access

to trusted users (i.e., approved users committed to

appropriate protections of the confidentiality of study

participants) while discouraging breaches of confidentiality

and/or by data redaction techniques developed in the

statistical and computer science communities. Under the

current wording, a choice may have to be made between

maintaining data confidentiality and issuing needed

regulations.

To emphasize the challenges and importance of

confidentiality protection, we note that simple but necessary

de-identification methods--like stripping names and other

personally identifiable information (PII)--often do not

suffice to protect confidentiality. Statisticians and

computer scientists have repeatedly shown it can be possible

to link individuals to publicly available sources, even with

PII removed. Thus, allowing unrestricted public access

without appropriate controls could result in unintended

disclosures. These could cause significant harm to the

advancement of science and the federal government--especially

the federal statistical system--as people may be less willing

to provide their data if highly publicized breaches occur.

In short, any requirements for making data available should

carefully consider the complexities, challenges, and

potential ramifications. We hope you will address these

concerns, which would require major modifications to the

bill. We would be happy to be of any assistance.

Sincerely,

David Morganstein,

President-Elect,

American Statistical Association.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Gosar's amendment. At least it clarifies the underlying intent of this bill in that this information relied on by the EPA should be thrown up on the Web site.

The peer-reviewed science relied on by the EPA often involves personal health information and other confidential data that is legally protected from disclosure. No legitimate researcher would violate the law and leak confidential information--for example, to make a trade secret or information protected by HIPAA accessible to anyone who has an Internet connection.

This amendment only makes the underlying problems with the bill that much more obvious, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of my time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Foster).

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit at the desk.

I am in its present form.

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that this is the final amendment to the bill, which will not kill the bill or send it back to the committee. If adopted, the bill will immediately proceed to final passage as amended.

I have already spoken at some length about the problems with the underlying bill. The bill would prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from using the best science in its mission to protect public health.

However, this motion to recommit highlights a specific and very troubling aspect of this bill. As written, the bill would prevent EPA from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating risk, exposure, or hazard assessments or guidance based on nonpublic information.

I and my Democratic colleagues are concerned about how this language would impede the EPA's ability to respond to emergencies and disasters.

I will give you an example. In my hometown of Dallas, we had a well- publicized case of a man named Thomas Duncan tragically dying after being infected with the Ebola virus. This gentleman was originally sent home from the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital when his symptoms were not initially identified as Ebola.

After Ebola was identified, great efforts were made to disinfect areas the gentleman had contact with while he was infected with Ebola.

I have a picture displayed here.

Here in my hand is EPA's list of disinfectants for use against Ebola virus. The EPA disseminates this critically important information on its Web site.

However, under this bill, the EPA could be prevented from disseminating this type of information because EPA-registered disinfectants are frequently supported by legally protected information or confidential business information.

In my hometown, not my district, two nurses who work at the Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital contracted Ebola. As a former nurse who worked in Dallas, I think it would be appalling to put our frontline health care workers, as well as the general public, at risk of the deadly Ebola virus or any other infectious disease all so we can take a political shot at EPA.

As another example of how this bill could affect emergency response, EPA could be prevented from providing guidance during toxic chemical spills like the one that occurred earlier this year in West Virginia. If that guidance to local emergency responders were based on confidential business information, which is oftentimes the case when dealing with registered chemicals, then the EPA would be prohibited from disseminating vital information to the local authorities. What is remarkable is that the Natural Resources Defense Council warned the committee of this exact issue in a letter back in February, but the majority chose to ignore those warnings. That is plain irresponsible.

My amendment would fix this problem by exempting any response to an emergency that could harm the health and safety of a community. The amendment won't fix all of the problems with this bill, but it will prevent one of the more morally objectionable outcomes of this legislation.

I urge adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, let me thank the ranking member.

I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 1422, the EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act. H.R. 1422 is a continuation of the majority's anti- science agenda. It benefits no one but the industry, and it harms public health.

The bill before us today ``reforms'' EPA's Science Advisory Board not for the better, but for the worse. The supposed intent of H.R. 1422 is to improve the process of selecting advisers to serve on the Agency's advisory board, but, in reality, H.R. 1422 will allow the board to be stacked with industry-affiliated representatives while making it more difficult for the experts from academia to serve on the board.

The role of the board is to provide independent scientific analysis and advice to the EPA, which includes reviewing the quality and relevance of scientific information used as the basis for regulations.

My Republican colleagues seem to have a fundamental distrust of scientists from our Nation's universities because these researchers, the ones with the most relevant expertise to EPA's mission of protecting public health, are denied the opportunity to provide EPA with their advice under H.R. 1422. It is difficult to understand how anyone could object to the most expert academics in the country being called on to offer their expertise to EPA. Who would know better whether EPA had mischaracterized the science on an issue than the people who are leaders in their respective fields?

The board is supposed to be composed of experts, including those who may have, literally, ``written the book'' on a matter. What is the alternative? Should we find people to serve who are less expert?

Equally troubling, H.R. 1422 goes out of its way to guarantee that industry-affiliated experts are the dominant voice on the board of experts. An expert with an industry association is far more likely to find that the science they are asked to review will have a financial impact on the employer. Academic scientists do not have such financial conflicts of interest with the board's advice or EPA's actions.

To be clear, I am not arguing that industry should have no representation on EPA's Science Advisory Board. Their insight is valuable. But I do not support stacking the board with industry representatives, as would be the outcome if this bill passes.

Another goal of H.R. 1422, as stated by our colleagues on the other side of the aisle, is to ``improve the science that goes into EPA regulations.'' H.R. 1422 falls shorts of that goal as well and, instead, weakens and delays the scientific review process, putting the health of every American at risk.

As a former nurse, I cannot support legislation that endangers public health, and I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H.R. 1422.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this bill came out of committee without a single Democratic vote.